Tumgik
yessoupy · 3 hours
Text
As a bisexual woman myself, guess what: I'm also queer.
Tumblr media
Amber Glenn — first openly queer woman to win a national championship
693 notes · View notes
yessoupy · 9 hours
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media
personal feelings, sir
175 notes · View notes
yessoupy · 9 hours
Text
people complaining that any critique of a thing they like ruins it for them is such a skill issue. personally i can spend 10 hours a day critiquing the things i like and still enjoy them passionately and wholeheartedly
30K notes · View notes
yessoupy · 9 hours
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
CALLUM TURNER as JOHN ‘BUCKY’ EGAN MASTERS OF THE AIR · part one
168 notes · View notes
yessoupy · 9 hours
Note
In some of your posts, you've said we can't believe the speeches in the original sources like Plutarch and Arrian. And I get it, that they wouldn't have ways to record exactly what people said, but wouldn't they try to get it at least close? Didn't orators publish their speeches, so they'd know what they said? Demosthenes published speeches about Philip, I know. And wouldn't readers back then get angry if they realized the writers were just making things up?
When it comes to ancient texts, particularly ancient historical texts, speeches, dialogue, and letters are especially problematic. Why? Authenticity.
As the asker indicated, a lack of recordings automatically problematizes this. But their memories were generally better. The real issue centers on ancient ideas of WHAT HISTORY WAS FOR.
Ancient historians were writing to entertain, as well as to educate, and promote their notions of how the past should be understood, often to school people in their present. “Cautionary tales,” if you will. Or models to emulate. When they do say where they got their information (frustratingly rarely), it’s as much to show off their education/how well-read they are, rather than to assure their readers they know what they’re talking about.
It’s critical to understand that ancient history was akin to modern creative nonfiction. I don’t say that to diss creative nonfiction (says the historian who also writes historical fiction). But it’s crucial to recognize it was nothing like modern academic history with footnotes, peer reviews, and fact-checks.*
In terms of preserved speeches (or orations), we have two types. The first (often forensic) were published after the fact by the orator himself.** Those are indeed their words, but their edited words. Unlike now, ancient speeches were typically composed aloud, not in writing. But at least speeches published by the orator are authentically their ideas, if not, perhaps, what was actually said (in court, the assembly, etc.). Nobody is putting words in their mouth.
By contrast, the orations and dialogue in our histories are the creations of the authors of those histories. Why goes back to the first (Greek) historians: Herodotos and Thucydides (and Xenophon). They set a pattern that later generations deliberately followed. All put speeches into the mouths of their major players. This is called oratio recta (direct speech), or what we’d call a quotation. Another form is oratio obliqua (indirect speech), or what we’d call a summary or a paraphrase. In general, the use of the former characterizes the Greek historians, while Roman historians preferred the latter. (There are any number of exceptions, however.)
Incidentally, these writers didn’t lie about it. Their readers/listeners realized it highly unlikely Herodotos knew what Darius or Xerxes said back in Susa or in the Persian camp, but they were there for the drama. Thucydides even admits (1.22.1) he has no clue what was said in the speeches he records from the Peloponnesian War, but he wrote what he thinks would have been proper for the situation.
Why make it up?
Orations were entertainment.
Just as modern fiction authors craft a story to forward themes and motifs, so also with ancient authors. When an author writes out a speech, PAY ATTENTION. It usually contains key points.
In our modern world with lowered attention spans, we can forget that people might listen to orations (especially longer ones) for fun.
Yet this is extraordinarily recent. For as long as we’ve been human, we’ve gathered to hear good storytellers and be inspired by good speakers. Sometimes the art of rhetoric is equated with intentional lying. That’s cynically silly. The art of rhetoric just means getting across your point clearly, and powerfully. A goodly chunk of Barach Obama’s appeal was his fine rhetoric. Ironically (and like it or not), the same can be said of Trump; the Maga crowd adores his word-salad “oration” style. Similarly, in some religious traditions, “good preachin’” is considered essential to good pastoring. And monologues, whether comedic, newsy, or folksy can develop cult followings, as The Rachel Maddow Show proves, or Stephen Colbert, or the much earlier “News from Lake Wobegon” from Prairie Home Companion (Garrison Keillor). You can probably name another half-dozen without breaking a sweat.
Because the oration was a form of entertainment in antiquity, many ancient authors sought to prove their own creative brilliance by writing speeches. That’s why you should never, ever, ever assume a verbatim speech in ANY Classical Greek or Roman text is what the speaker actually said. If you’re lucky, it may at least represent the gist. But it also might not. Dialogue is similar. They make it up.
With letters, one might think at least they could copy it—no need to remember. Like orations, letters were sometimes published by one of the authors, for posterity. (The letters of Cicero, or the Younger Pliny are good examples.) Yet the same principle applies. Letters were a way for an historian to display creative chops so “tweaked” letters were not uncommon, even if based on an original. And sometimes letters were invented whole-cloth, at need.
Yet there’s another issue with letters that moderns aren’t aware of: accidental forgeries.
How can a forgery be accidental?
It’s a rhetorical-school lesson that “escaped.”
A popular assignment for students was to write a letter (or oration) “in the style of ___ famous person,” or “as if from the point-of-view of ___ famous person.” Lessons weren’t just to learn how to turn a phrase, but also to instill proper morals. So, for instance, some ancient schoolboy’s essay prompt might be: “Illustrate pistos/fides (loyalty) in a letter from Alexander to his mother, Olympias.” To get a good grade, he had to show he knew something about Alexander, about proper pistos/fides, as well as how to write like a king.⸸
Some of these letters got confused later with the real thing. Remember, record-keeping was rather haphazard.
So…recorded speeches, dialogue, and letters in our ancient histories should be regarded much the same as you’d regard such in modern creative non-fiction: dramatization to increase reader interest.
* This isn’t to say ancient historians never critiqued each other; they most certainly did. Sometimes quite brutally—and from the beginning. Thucydides is our the second surviving Greek historian and he begins his history by, in his very first chapter, including an oblique criticism of Herodotos, who invented the discipline!
** Male gender used on purpose. Greek women weren’t allowed to make public speeches, and Hortensia was considered a weirdo who pissed off the Second Triumvirate. She certainly gave a speech, but Appian put words in her mouth—like most ancient writers.
⸸ Ironically, I do something very similar in my own classes on Alexander. We put him on trial for war crimes, and students write either as Alexander in his own defense, or as the prosecutor, whoever that might be (Demosthenes, the King of Tyre, a Persian noble, etc.). They must write their speech demonstrating the morals of the ancient world, not the modern, using the primary sources. To get a feel for it, they must read a couple Greek forensic speeches too, in order to understand how to properly frame their arguments. This allows them “to get into the heads” of the ancients themselves. It’s not only more fun, but more effective as a learning tool, imo.
6 notes · View notes
yessoupy · 18 hours
Text
Tumblr media
I can't keep this blog running by myself, so I’d love to have people to help me around!
What do you have to do as a moderator?
You have to search for new posts related to fandom and Fan Studies and read them to evaluate their content (we have a compilation of places to help to do this task);
You have to select posts and then tag them according to the topic the posts are about (we have a guide explaining how the tag system works);
Ideally you should know how to queue posts, but it’s not a requirement. If you’re willing to learn, that is more than enough.
You have the freedom to choose how your schedule as a moderator of @studiesof-fandom will work! We only need to have content posted a few days every week to keep this blog running and updated.
If you’re interested, please send an inbox to @studiesof-fandom!
I ask for my followers to reblog this post to spread the word!
82 notes · View notes
yessoupy · 18 hours
Text
Just gauging interest here - if there were an hbowar big bang (including mota), how many artists would be interested in participating? Doesn't have to be drawing! Could be edits, gifs, any other visual media.
If you could reblog this you would be Enrique Iglesias because you'd be my hero.
63 notes · View notes
yessoupy · 18 hours
Text
“imagine your otp”
i do. always. in literally every scenario.
72K notes · View notes
yessoupy · 18 hours
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
BNO is one of the few outlets still working to provide this information. Go to Twitter and give them a buck or two if you can to keep this vital information in public hands.
693 notes · View notes
yessoupy · 20 hours
Text
seen a lot of these with your favorites, but reblog with the CURRENT book you are reading, show you are streaming, the last movie you watched, and any game/puzzle/crafts you’re working on 
93K notes · View notes
yessoupy · 21 hours
Text
target had thank you notes on sale so I stocked up!!!!
0 notes
yessoupy · 23 hours
Text
Tumblr media
it me
1 note · View note
yessoupy · 2 days
Note
Do you love war films, men in military uniform, or displays of brotherhood?
ok thank you for the ask, i have been thinking about it all day!!!!!
first, your second clause:
do i love men in military uniform?
that is definitely not what attracts me to HBO war, or to war films in general. once i'm watching, i definitely do like when they're all dressed up nice and matching in their uniforms, but typically that's very little of the actual show or movie. mostly they're dirty, unkempt, bloody, lacking the proper winter clothes. they're neat and tidy only when they head off to war and if they come home.
do i love war films?
i enjoy films that are based on historical events in some way. i like to watch the movie or show, and then go read source material, find a podcast or two about the events, and then go watch whatever it was again. since i taught history for so long, i was always on the lookout for clips i could use in class. but before i was a teacher, or had any idea that's something i wanted to do, i was drawn to war films.
or do i love displays of brotherhood?
why i love war films/series is bound up in this concept for sure. i like to witness a group of people from all over the place learn to form a unit, work together, rely on one another, and keep each other safe. sports can do this too, but without the element of danger.
but i think the real key for me isn't any of the above, but instead watching the stories of ordinary people doing extraordinary things because that's simply what needs to be done. when called war heroes, these men shrug it off and say, "i was just doing my job. anyone else would have done the same." which is, to some extent, true! human beings are capable of so much, and when one of those things is tenderness and care while in mortal danger, it gives me hope.
4 notes · View notes
yessoupy · 2 days
Text
Tumblr media
467 notes · View notes
yessoupy · 2 days
Text
“A Jew is asked to take a leap of action rather than a leap of faith.”
— Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel (via modehani)
2K notes · View notes
yessoupy · 2 days
Text
Something I think ppl who aren't used to it struggle with when it comes to ancient history is that frequently 'we do not and cannot know this' is the only truthful response a historian can give. People severely overestimate how much we actually know about Ancient Rome.
I remember talking to someone at a party once about the debate over Septimius Severus's ethnicity (whole other can of worms) and they asked if genetic testing of his remains was not a way to settle it and I was like oh. Oh okay you are under the impression we have the physical remains of Roman emperors from the second century AD alright then. (We. Do not.)
26K notes · View notes
yessoupy · 2 days
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Nate Mann as Major Robert "Rosie" Rosenthal Masters of the Air: Part Five
333 notes · View notes